4 ms·

This is apple's modus operandi. Hobble competitors even if it's anti-customer. Fill the gap themselves for higher profits.

• diggan 2y ago
  Don't forget the classic "Oh, that 3rd party app/feature is so popular, I bet we could build a identical/slightly less useful thing ourselves so people don't have to use other things than Apple software ever"
  • neilv 2y ago
    If necessary, you can even retroactively ban the competitor's app from the App Store that you control. As pretext, you can say the competitor's app is doing something now considered insecure or not privacy-respecting, or is not compliant with some new user experience or quality curation that you do.
  • rickdeckard 2y ago
    Conveniently, Apple's App Store Review Guidelines also include several rules that restrict apps from duplicating features that the OS already provides. So if they detect a trend early enough, they implement it as first-party feature, dry out the existing competitors while restricting new competitors to enter based on the App Store Review...
    • threeseed 2y ago
      The guideline says: "Apps that copy basic iPhone or iPad functionality (including but not limited to its UI, gestures, core features) will be rejected unless the app provides a clearly different purpose or adds unique functionality." Note the "basic" line. And there are plenty of Photos, Notes, Streaming etc apps so not seeing where this is being used to exclude competitors.
      • saagarjha 2y ago
        Do you think Apple will describe how they’re using this to prevent competition in their guidelines? You’ll need to read third party developers’ accounts for that.
    • snailmailman 2y ago
      I’m pretty sure this rule is only there to stop the hundreds of “flashlight” apps that used to exist. (Although, they appear to still exist) There isn’t tons of innovation or competition in “flashlight app” other than adding advertisements. There used to be a bunch of them that would only get popular out of necessity. The ones I’m seeing now in the App Store do seem to have non-default behaviors like “strobe light” at least, so they aren’t true clones of native functionality. Apple isn’t using that rule to take down alternate weather apps, despite them having their own native weather app. There’s still plenty of QR code scanning apps, despite that being built into default camera app.
      • Osiris 2y ago
        And yet Apple has shown many times a willingness to use vague language of their rules to block apps they don't want. Past behavior can't predict future behavior.
      • kevincox 2y ago
        So what? Why not let there be flashlight apps if users find them useful? Apple doesn't have to recommend them in the app store and can sort them to the bottom of search results page. But why can't the exist. If people don't want them they will choose not to install them.
        • diggan 2y ago
          > But why can't the exist. I'm fairly sure "Only high quality apps should be available to users" was said more than once when the Apple AppStore first launched (together with the second or third iPhone I think?). Apple isn't really into the whole "users can choose what's best" thing, which once you understand this, a lot of their choices become understandable (albeit shitty none the less).
      • frollogaston 2y ago
        No, there's a separate rule against making the kind of app there are already too many of.
  • scosman 2y ago
    I've never understood this Apple criticism (scherlocking). Someone built a search for your files, so it's not right for Apple to build a pretty key feature into the OS? There's a lot of fair criticisms of Apple, but they don't have to be absolutely first at everything or never enter the market.
    • rpdillon 2y ago
      The key criticism is the final step. They don't only duplicate the functionality. They then ban the original implementation from their stores because it can create "customer confusion".
      • sunaookami 2y ago
        This has never happened.
        • FireBeyond 2y ago
          Not explicitly (because that might be too openly anti-competitive even for Apple) but Apple refused to allow f.lux into the App Store, and it had to be sideloaded - and Apple leaned on them to stop offering that. When Apple did offer Night Shift in iOS 9.3 it made the APIs to do this Apple-only, for ... reasons. As of today, no non-Apple app can modify color temperature of the display.
          • threeseed 2y ago
            > Apple refused to allow f.lux into the App Store It was using private APIs. This is never acceptable as it undermines the entire security architecture.
            • FireBeyond 2y ago
              > This is never acceptable as it undermines the entire security architecture. Private APIs for security reasons? Sure. For this? Garbage. There is not a single cogent reason that a color temperature API is a security gate. Or if you think there is, what is it?
  • avgDev 2y ago
    Then they will hit you with, "We do this for safety of your data, we don't want bad actors getting health info from your watch". I enjoy apple devices but hate the walled garden.
    • dolmen 2y ago
      I don't want Apple either to get access to my health info, so I don't have such device from Apple.
• wilg 2y ago
  I mean it’s also a lot more work to add all the features Pebble would need so it could simply be they don’t think it’s worth it (and it probably isn’t, given all the other broken stuff they need to fix).
• underdeserver 2y ago
  And why wouldn't they? It's a ton of money and no regulator seems to care.